Get groups

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds return shape (a wrapper containing the original response and a list of Group models) and error behavior (ParameterError on invalid parameters), but it omits filtering, pagination defaults, and permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and the purpose is front-loaded, but the Args section is boilerplate that provides almost no value, and the Returns/Raises sections are generic docstring scaffolding. It is concise but not efficiently informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 46-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is far too thin. It should explain pagination behavior, filtering semantics, and how the numerous group-related arguments affect the result; instead it says only that arbitrary kwargs are accepted and returns a wrapper.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema documents 46 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description offers only '**kwargs: Additional parameters (e.g., group_id)', which explains none of the important parameters like page, per_page, max_pages, visibility, or the many group-attribute filters. With low schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a list of groups.' This implicitly distinguishes it from the singular sibling gitlab_get_group, though it never names that sibling or clarifies scope (all groups vs. the caller's groups).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this vs. gitlab_get_group, gitlab_get_group_subgroups, gitlab_get_namespaces, or gitlab_get_projects. No context is given about authentication scope, pagination expectations, or filtering behavior, leaving the agent to infer usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.